NY courts tell British to get stuffed.
Ehrenfeld is in effect permanently barred from ever visiting England.
Both nations continue to run their affairs in the manner chosen by their elected representatives, and don’t try to enforce court judgements outside their own jurisdictions.

If the British really don’t want such awful stuff destroying peoples’ reputation in Britain they should sue the book’s importers and ask the Chinese how to set up an effective internet censorship scheme, not ask us to change for their convenience.

Findlaw’s Julie Hilden (via La Shawn Barber) talks about Rachel Ehrenfeld’s problem with Saudi billionaire bin Mahfouz, and regarding the UK’s ludicrous libel laws, she says…

If Mahfouz is innocent, let him come to America to make his case. Britain has no business getting involved in this matter. The most annoying cliche ever uttered in movies actually applies here: “You can’t do this to me! I’m an American citizen!”

The author is American, and published the book in America, by an American publishing company one assumes–ergo, America has the sole jurisdiction. Let Mahfouz come here and make his case, if he has one.

As for the internet and jurisdiction, we already have people whining that they want to take away control of the internet from the US, and this case underscores why such a thing should never be allowed to happen.

Even with the internet Americans definitely have the right to say that what we write/say over here is no one’s business over there, wherever “there” is. The internet should just give other people practice in learning about the concept of free speech, and not be used as a chance for them to suppress ours.

No unconstitutional “defamation treaty” to hide behind, and a clear line of accountability – any judge fool enough to hand Ehrenfeld over would face the wrath of voters and/or elected representatives.

Ehrenfeld sought protection under New York state law and asked that the judgment be rendered unenforceable, but the courts contend Bin Mahfouz is not subject to New York jurisdiction.

I am mystified that jurisdiction over Bin Mahfouz even enters into it. The issue is that British courts do not have jurisdiction over Ehrenfeld.

Yeesh. The Brits just keep justifying our revolution every chance they get.

Agreed! I loathe the idea of being subjected to laws in foreign courts, esp. if my “crime” occurred on American soil. But this Internet thing, I’m telling you, it’s squeezing us all together. Too closely? For better or for worse, we get to see all this play out on the global stage. And we’ve got good seats!

I don’t agree with Hilden, or with her proposed “solution”. This is not a “clash of cultures” – these laws and lawsuits are being pushed by groups and individuals who see them as a way to shut up those who get in their way.

Nor do I feel comfortable with the idea that US citizens should be subject to foreign laws – even British ones. What happened to national sovereignty and our own political process? One of the reason people come to the United States is to escape people like Bin Mahfouz.

It is not hard to see the consequences of this. What happens if Iranian leaders demand that American women (Muslim or not) be forced into obeying sharia law – including the burka and genital mutilation? On what grounds would American courts refuse if they allow Americans to be subjected to lawsuits like Bin Mahfouz’s? It is no use to argue that there is no treaty to cover it – the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, not an unconstitutional “defamation treaty”. It is no great leap to go from a “defamation treaty” to ignoring the Constitution altogether.